binocular wrote:Why do you think it is relevant that Christianity borrowed (as per you) some teachings from Buddhism?

I think it is relevant to view that Christianity borrowed some teachings from Buddhism because it is supports the enlightened view of cause & effect & supports the enlightened view, as posted earlier, from MN 115, that there cannot be the contemporaneous arising of two Sammasambuddha in one world system.

Although Buddha is called 'Sammasambuddha' (meaning self-enlightened without a teacher), his enlightenment was influenced by cause & effect, in that his concentration practises were influenced by current practises of his time. It was Buddha's insight that was truly unique (rather than his concentration).

I think it is relevant because if we believe Jesus 'spontaneously arose' without other influences then we may deny the evolution that is cause & effect and, instead, we may develop or maintain views of 'spontaneous creationism' with a god as the sole cause.

The Buddhist scriptures say:

Monks, there are these three sectarian guilds that — when cross-examined, pressed for reasons, & rebuked by wise people — even though they may explain otherwise, remain stuck in [a doctrine of] inaction. Which three?

There are brahmans & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all caused by what was done in the past.' There are brahmans & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation.' There are brahmans & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all without cause & without condition.'

"Having approached the brahmans & contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation?"' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being's act of creation. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of a supreme being's act of creation.' When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those brahmans & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.

Also, keep in mind, Christianity seems to have a clear doctrine of spontaneous sole cause created arising of Jesus:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

Without consciousness, there cannot be enlightenment. Therefore, how can consciousness be a dilemma?

Discernment & consciousness, friend: Of these qualities that are conjoined, not disjoined, discernment is to be developed, consciousness is to be fully comprehended. MN 43

My understanding of Buddha's teachings is craving (passion) was identified as the dilemma to be abandoned.

If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' Upaya Sutta

You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness — for the ending of craving, Radha, is Unbinding. Satta Sutta

Christianity also identifies the dilemma as craving, the same as Buddhism

John 4:13
Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life. I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

Galatians 5:24
Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

James 4:1
[ Submit Yourselves to God ] What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you?

James 1:15
When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

binocular wrote:Why do you think it is relevant that Christianity borrowed (as per you) some teachings from Buddhism?

I think it is relevant to view that Christianity borrowed some teachings from Buddhism because it is supports the enlightened view of cause & effect & supports the enlightened view, as posted earlier, from MN 115, that there cannot be the contemporaneous arising of two Sammasambuddha in one world system.

Although Buddha is called 'Sammasambuddha' (meaning self-enlightened without a teacher), his enlightenment was influenced by cause & effect, in that his concentration practises were influenced by current practises of his time. It was Buddha's insight that was truly unique (rather than his concentration).

I think it is relevant because if we believe Jesus 'spontaneously arose' without other influences then we may deny the evolution that is cause & effect and, instead, we may develop or maintain views of 'spontaneous creationism' with a god as the sole cause.

It seems then that you are trying to safeguard against Christianity; to show that Christian doctrine is not the highest there is or can be.
Is that correct?

Without consciousness, there cannot be enlightenment. Therefore, how can consciousness be a dilemma?

Why are there questions? No consciousness no wanting to know. Idea causes idea. Idea and consciousness are one and the same phenomenon.
No ignorance, no consciousness.

From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
...
Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness.

Zakattack wrote:Without consciousness, there cannot be enlightenment. Therefore, how can consciousness be a dilemma?

Sounds like "without dukkha, no liberation from dukkha. Therefore, how can dukkha be a dilemma?"

No ignorance, no consciousness.

From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. ...
...
Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. ...

"What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about:[1] This is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing [or: an establishing] of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

"If one doesn't intend and doesn't arrange, but one still obsesses [about something], this is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such [too] is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

"But when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything], there is no support for the stationing of consciousness. There being no support, there is no landing of consciousness. When that consciousness doesn't land & grow, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."

To replace christian consciousness (christian ideas) by buddhist consciousness (buddhist ideas) in the context of belief (ideas affirming themselves to be more than just that) still is "intending, arranging or obsessing about" and "stationing ... landing of consciousness", so there is "the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair.

That is why it has been said

From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. ... Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.
...
Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. ... Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."

binocular wrote:It seems then that you are trying to safeguard against Christianity; to show that Christian doctrine is not the highest there is or can be.

For the purpose of penetrating Buddhism & enlightenment, it is not necessary to safeguard against those practical teachings in Christianity that are the same as Buddhism. But to believe in the theistic aspect of Christianity will certainly hinder penetrating Buddhism & enlightenment. If people are inclined to theism then Christianity is available for them. Buddha did not actively work to stop theism. As for what is the highest liberation of mind, it is made clear in Buddhism this is Nirvana/Emptiness. MN 43 lists five kinds of liberation of mind (ceto vimittu), including the (Christian) liberation of mind by loving-kindness. It is correctly declared the liberation of mind by Emptiness (sunnata) is the foremost. It is not necessary for me to show Christian doctrine is not the highest there is or can be. This is a fact of reality, pointed out by the Buddhas. This view of 'equality' of Christianity & Buddhism will hinder the realisation of Buddhism. All paths & religions are valid but they all do not necessarily lead to the same destination. With metta.

ground wrote:"What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about: This is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing [or: an establishing] of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

"But when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything], there is no support for the stationing of consciousness. There being no support, there is no landing of consciousness. When that consciousness doesn't land & grow, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."

This quote is suitable. The dilemma here is the "stationing", "establishing" & "growing" of consciousness. Theses words are synonymous with delight (infatuation) & attachment. When an ordinary man sees a beautiful woman, consciousness, via craving, will become stationed, established & will grow ('wide eyed') there. I would recommend to re-read the sutta quoted. This photograph perfectly shows what is being taught in the sutta about the stationing & growing of consciousness.

Please recall, I quoted a sutta that described the liberation of consciousness rather than the liberation from consciousness.

If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' Upaya Sutta

There are many sutta that describe liberation when remaining conscious.

What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana-element with residue left.

As for the translation "cessation", this may not accurately represent the Pali "nirodha". I think only some kind of experience of liberation can provide us with conviction about the actual meaning of this word. Keep in mind, in the 3rd Noble Truth, "nirodha" describes the cessation of craving. I suggest the quotes you & I have made will all conform to each other when "nirodha" is interpreted as 'the cessation of craving affecting consciousness' rather than 'unconsciousness'. (However, there are alternative one word translations of "nirodha", which will alter your theoretical idea). There is little point arguing about this because it is experiential realisation which determines individual convictions. However, what is beyond dispute is your ideas about the 'cessation of consciousness' are just theoretical ideas. As the cessation of consciousness can never be experienced since all experience requires consciousness then your idea remains a theoretical idea and remains contrary to the dhamma principle of verifying the dhamma via experience. In conclusion, your theoretical idea about "the cessation of consciousness" contradicts your own very point made earlier, when you said:

Ground wrote:You seem to confuse "being conditioned to perceive as X" on the one hand and the thought of "X being independent of perception" on the other hand. Since you cannot discern dependent arising of "perceiving as X" X appears to you as if being independent of "perception as X".

Yes. It seems beyond dispute you are "being conditioned" to believe (rather than perceive) in this "cessation of consciousness" that occurs after the cessation of ignorance. Therefore, by doing some research , some alternative translations for "nirodha" may be found that may possibly reconcile conflicting views & sutta.

Zakattack wrote:
Please recall, I quoted a sutta that described the liberation of consciousness rather than the liberation from consciousness.

"Liberation" is a consciousness. There is no liberation beyond the consciousness "liberation". Liberation is just an idea, is just consciousness clinging to itself, is just "intending, arranging and obsessing about".

Zakattack wrote:
There are many sutta that describe liberation when remaining conscious.

There is no meaning in any suttas. There is conditioned consciousness arising upon seeing.

Zakattack wrote:
Yes. It seems beyond dispute you are "being conditioned" to believe (rather than perceive) in this "cessation of consciousness" that occurs after the cessation of ignorance.

Conditions made this body, the perception of it, arise. And conditions will bring this body to an end, the perception of it. There is nothing that ceases beyond the consciousnesses arising upon reading these words before there will arise and cease the next consciousnesses. No belief, words are just trial ballons, quoting suttas is just trial ballons. Forget suttas. There is no benefit, there are just consciousnesses nuturing themselves. Understanding may arise or understanding may not arise. Buth whether there is understanding or not, no difference. My words do not make difference, what makes difference for itself is consciousness arising upon seeing words.

Zakattack,
Having said all this, this is not meant to reject your buddhism. On the contrary I advice you to keep at it! Why? Because for the time being this seems to be your way and you have to go down this road. And if you need your idea of christianity to strenghten your resolve then keep at it and cultivate it. However watch out for passions.
And if I meet a christian who argues against buddhism to strengthen his resolve I will be giving the same advice: Keep at it! Why? For the time being christianity seems to be his way and he has to go down this road. However I will say: Watch out for passions.

Discern conditioned arising of consciousnesses and investigate the outset.

ground wrote:"Liberation" is a consciousness. There is no liberation beyond the consciousness "liberation". Liberation is just an idea, is just consciousness clinging to itself, is just "intending, arranging and obsessing about".

Liberation is the unconditioned. Consciousness is a condition phenomena. Liberation is not an idea. If liberation was an idea then all that would be required for liberation to give rise to the idea rather than entering the path stream of cleansing the mind.

Forget suttas. There is no benefit...

The realities expressed in the suttas represent the 2nd of the Triple Gem. The sutta test realisation.

ground wrote:Having said all this, this is not meant to reject your buddhism. On the contrary I advice you to keep at it! Why? Because for the time being this seems to be your way and you have to go down this road. And if you need your idea of christianity to strenghten your resolve then keep at it and cultivate it. However watch out for passions. And if I meet a christian who argues against buddhism to strengthen his resolve I will be giving the same advice: Keep at it! Why? For the time being christianity seems to be his way and he has to go down this road. However I will say: Watch out for passions. Discern conditioned arising of consciousnesses and investigate the outset.

I think before to reject something it needs to be understood. Giving advice is the same. Instead of posting the pananca above, I suggest to realise Dhamma. Buddha taught: "One stuck in the mud cannot pull another out of the mud, that is impossible". Jesus taught: "When the blind lead the blind, they both fall into a ditch".

Zakattack wrote:This view of 'equality' of Christianity & Buddhism will hinder the realisation of Buddhism. All paths & religions are valid but they all do not necessarily lead to the same destination. With metta.

Zakattack wrote:This view of 'equality' of Christianity & Buddhism will hinder the realisation of Buddhism. All paths & religions are valid but they all do not necessarily lead to the same destination. With metta.

Who argues that Christianity and Buddhism are equal?

Same source, same essence, same basis. In addition: same effect of practice (focus and exclusion, resulting in faith, contentment, confidence and even happiness). However the ideas qua self-expressions by means of words are different. So it is similar to colors. All colors are the same in terms of source, essence, basis and visual effect qua effect ... however individuals actually do prefer different colors. That does however not render one color superior to the other when the sphere of preference, i.e. mere like and dislike, is left behind.

ground wrote:In addition: same effect of practice (focus and exclusion, resulting in faith, contentment, confidence and even happiness).

The impression here is the intended effect ("fruit") of Buddhism remains a mystery. "Happiness" is impermanent "heaven". It is not the Nibbana of utter dispassion (viraga) & emptiness (sunnata). If there was no Buddhism, how far can the teachings recorded in the Bible take a mind towards the enlightenment that ends suffering?

I wonder if Ground is a Westerner? In my experience, what I have found is many Asian Buddhists become quite infatuated with Christianity, including famous monks such as Thich Nhat Han & Buddhadasa. It is one thing to view Christianity from a Buddhist background. It is another thing to be a Westerner that found nothing in Christianity and then searched & searched until they found Buddhism.

Buddha taught: "Svakkhato bhagavata dhamma: The Dhamma, perfectly explained by the Blessed One". It is important to see when one projects the clarity of Dhamma onto the convolutedness of Christianity. Can the Bible alone bring real wisdom & real freedom from suffering? Do the teachings of Jesus really stack up to the following description?

Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork....MN 22